check_jobs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explaining the return record shape, the possible statuses (queued/running/succeeded/failed), that failed records include an error, and that unknown ids return status 'unknown'. Missing details like rate limits or authentication, but these are not critical for a polling tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a context sentence, and a return-format explanation. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage context, input meaning, output shape, statuses, and error handling. The only minor gap is lack of details about rate limits or permissions, but these are not essential for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only defines job_ids as an array of strings with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that each id produces one status record and that unknown ids are handled gracefully. It doesn't specify ID format or maximum batch size, but the semantic purpose of the parameter is well conveyed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Batch-poll jobs by id'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_jobs by emphasizing polling specific IDs and noting it is 'the companion to fan-out generation'. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context by stating this is the companion to fan-out generation, implying it should be used after generating jobs in batch. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use list_jobs to enumerate jobs', so it falls short of a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.